apple_reorder_placements

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by saying the tool reads back and verifies the order after setting it, and it notes the in-app event localization exclusion, but it does not disclose permissions required, whether the operation is destructive, or what happens to existing placements not included in the list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter-level details, permission requirements, and the behavior of the targetType enum beyond the single exclusion, leaving an agent without enough information to call the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the four parameters. It only vaguely references 'one localization and placement group' and 'display order', leaving targetType values (beyond the in-app exclusion), the array nature of placementIds, and the distinction between localizationId and placementGroup unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Set the complete display order') and resource ('placements') for a scoped unit ('one localization and placement group'). It distinguishes itself from sibling placement tools like apple_list_placements and apple_create_placement by focusing on reordering rather than listing or creating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear context for use (setting display order for a localization and placement group) and an explicit exclusion ('In-app event localizations are not orderable'), which helps avoid a common misuse. It stops short of naming alternative tools or describing when not to use it beyond that single exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.